Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 3:04 AM
397 online now:
frako, PaulK, Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 393 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,284 Year: 16,890/21,208 Month: 2,779/3,593 Week: 246/646 Day: 9/115 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
232425
26
2728Next
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 376 of 415 (514623)
07-09-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by traste
07-08-2009 11:30 PM


Eternal Life
Hello Traste

Are you claiming that "life" is eternal? That it has always been around? If you take Pastuer's experiment as applying to all forms of "life" throughout all of time, where did the first "life" come from?

Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by traste, posted 07-08-2009 11:30 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by traste, posted 07-10-2009 4:32 AM dokukaeru has acknowledged this reply

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 377 of 415 (514629)
07-09-2009 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by traste
07-08-2009 11:30 PM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
But current data today speak againts the idea of reducing atmosphere.

Traste, do you realize that you are using the same argument against the Miller/Urey experiment that every other poster is using against your assumption that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis?

Pasteur's experiment had a set of pre-conditions for life to spontaneously generate. But these pre-conditions are not accurate, therefore his experiment proved nothing about the emergence of life 4 billion years ago.

Again, this is the same argument you are using for Miller/Urey.
Don't you see that?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by traste, posted 07-08-2009 11:30 PM traste has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 378 of 415 (514630)
07-09-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by traste
07-08-2009 10:33 PM


Hypothetico-deductive logic and the new hypothesis
Hi, Traste.

traste writes:

Bluejay writes:

traste writes:

I know that you still believe in an intelligent Designer, you are just using evolution to disprove the creation account of christianity.

What?

You are higly pretentious!! Are you ashame of your beliefs??

How is it pretentious to be confused by a self-contradictory statement?

You say that I believe in Intelligent Design, but am trying to disprove Christian creationism by appealing to evolution.
I don't understand what you mean!
What gave you the impression that I believe in an Intelligent Designer?

-----

traste writes:

And, here is my parody of your logic: Statement X is incorrect because it challenge my beliefs.

Which of my beliefs does statement X challenge?
You just told me above that I believe in an Intelligent Designer.
Is this the belief you are speaking of?
Does Pasteur's experiment challenge my alleged belief in an Intelligent Designer?
Or, are you admitting that you were wrong about me believing in an Intelligent Designer?

-----

traste writes:

Bluejay writes:

You are trying to derive a universal conclusion from Pasteurís limited data set...

No! Im, trying to derive a specific conclusion and applied it universally. This method ia called,deduction.

No, this method is called induction, not deduction.

Deductive reasoning goes like this:

All life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
Flies are a kind of life.
Therefore, flies come from pre-existing flies.

Inductive reasoning goes like this:

Flies come from pre-existing flies.
Therefore, all other life forms come from pre-existing life forms.

This is now the third logical term you have misused in as many posts.

Science uses what is called a "hypothetico-deductive" system of reasoning. An idea derived from inductive logic is called a "hypothesis." A hypothesis is not considered authoritative, and cannot be used as evidence. It must go through deductive testing before it becomes authoritative.

The testing of the "omne vivum ex ovo" hypothesis includes Miller-Urey and other studies like it. In fact, this testing is still going on, and what that testing is showing is that a lot of things that we thought couldn't self-assemble actually can. This means that chemical systems can gain in complexity over time.

Thus, we no longer hold to the idea that Pasteur's statement is universal. Because that statement was derived from inductive reasoning, we are not contradicting any established, authoritative science in rejecting it.

This means that we are now working with a new inductive hypothesis, which is that, since some biomolecules can self-assemble, others also can.

I will be the first to admit that we may find some insurmountable barrier to abiogenesis, at which point we will have to consider the possibility that the Traste-Pasteur Hypothesis is correct. But, current data gives us reason to believe that such a barrier does not exist, thus, it does not make logical sense to doggedly adhere to the belief that the barrier does exist.

Give it time, and we'll know for certain.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by traste, posted 07-08-2009 10:33 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by traste, posted 07-09-2009 10:39 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Meddle
Member
Posts: 160
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 379 of 415 (514638)
07-09-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by traste
07-08-2009 11:30 PM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
I know Urey and Miller's experiment, that experiment rest on the assumption that the primative atmosphere was reducing, as Miller and his co workres put it " the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." But current data today speak againts the idea of reducing atmosphere.

The only suggestions I can find that the early earth had an oxidising atmosphere seems to be creationist web sites. Their arguments seem to feature iron oxidisation resulting in 'banded iron formations' although these would act as oxygen sinks and would have to exhausted before atmospheric oxygen would build up; or discussion of the late archaen/early proterozoic, which is after life appeared over 3.4 billion years ago.

But here we are arguing over atmospheric conditions for experiments looking at abiogenesis, which confirms the point I was trying to make in my previous post, just as Son has pointed out in Message 373. Unlike experiments by Miller and Urey et al. you have completely ignored Pasteurs methodology in performing his own experiment.

But that still leave the possibilities that life might arose spontaneuosly. And you will say this is acceptable. But as we know Pasteur's expriment did not in favor of that.

Life appearing through a repeat of Pasteurs experiment would be supportive of spontaneous generation, but that still wouldn't be supportive of abiogenesis. As has been pointed out by others on this thread, in science the study of abiogenesis generally involves how life first began on earth. This involves trying to model as accurately as possible the environment of the early earth and identifying the chemicals that form which may be capable of developing into life. Can we agree that a flask of cooked meet broth open to a modern environment is not a suitable model?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by traste, posted 07-08-2009 11:30 PM traste has not yet responded

traste
Member (Idle past 2587 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 380 of 415 (514647)
07-09-2009 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Blue Jay
07-09-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Hypothetico-deductive logic and the new hypothesis
Bluejay wrote:

How is it pretentious to be confused by a self-contradictory statement?

Actually it is not self contradictory, I just read your rebuttal to cavediver's " Why The intelligent designer is so inept"[/qs]

You say that I believe in Intelligent Design, but am trying to disprove Christian creationism by appealing to evolution.
I don't understand what you mean!

Then let me explain. In another op I read that you still believe in a God, infact you counter cavediver's idea that the intelligent Designer is so inept. I think you are not a christian but a muslim, and trying to disprove creation account of christianity using evolution.

What gave you the impression that I believe in an Intelligent Designer?

Your rebuttal to cavediver's "why the intelligent designer is so inept."

Which of my beliefs does statement X challenge?

The belief that life originate from non-life.

You just told me above that I believe in an Intelligent Designer.

Yes, I told you.

Is this the belief you are speaking of?

Yes. I understand that you still believe in an designer that used Darwinian mechanism to produce organism. Your belief is like that of Asa D GRAY and Theodosius Dobhszanky. They are christian yet believe that God produced organism throuh Darwinian mechanism.

Or, are you admitting that you were wrong about me believing in an Intelligent Designer

I stand on my claimed.

No, this method is called induction, not deduction

You are right. I tried to change it, but as you see there is no edit. My grammar is sometimes inconsistent. I need your help. Where is the edit?

No, this method is called induction, not deduction.

Deductive reasoning goes like this:

All life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
Flies are a kind of life.
Therefore, flies come from pre-existing flies.
Inductive reasoning goes like this:

Flies come from pre-existing flies.
Therefore, all other life forms come from pre-existing life forms.
This is now the third logical term you have misused in as many posts

Oh dear I know all of this, this is just elementary logic you dont need to repeat it again. A person of my status who now focusing on complex reasoning and retrogade reasoning know all of this things.

Science uses what is called a "hypothetico-deductive" system of reasoning. An idea derived from inductive logic is called a "hypothesis." A hypothesis is not considered authoritative, and cannot be used as evidence. It must go through deductive testing before it becomes authoritative

You did it well. Good Job!! This is however inconflict with your previous stand.

The testing of the "omne vivum ex ovo" hypothesis includes Miller-Urey and other studies like it. In fact, this testing is still going on, and what that testing is showing is that a lot of things that we thought couldn't self-assemble actually can. This means that chemical systems can gain in complexity over time

Information update: Miller currently have said that " the origin of life is much more difficult than other people and I envision"

One science writer in Technology review wrote: " scientist are having to re - think some of there assumption little evidence has emerged to support the notion of hydrogen rich highly reducing atmosphere bur some evidence speak againts it"

The scientific american reported that:" Over the past decades or so doubts have grown about Urey and Miller experiment" .I will continue later its already time. I still have to study my math lesson.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Blue Jay, posted 07-09-2009 4:53 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 10:34 AM traste has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3798
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 381 of 415 (514648)
07-10-2009 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Adminnemooseus
07-07-2009 11:24 PM


Re: Let's get back on topic, or stop posting
The topic title and theme is "Transition from chemistry to biology".

Things don't seem to be totally off-topic, but there sure seems to be a lot of way-off-topic also being plugged into some messages.

People, how about more focus?

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-07-2009 11:24 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2587 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 382 of 415 (514651)
07-10-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by dokukaeru
07-09-2009 3:37 PM


Re: Eternal Life

dokukaeru wrote:

Are you claiming that "life" is eternal?

I did not claimed that, my point is life has a beginning but it did not develop spontaneously. If you keep on talking abiogenesis, just take note that chemical interaction is spontaneous.:laugh::laugh::laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by dokukaeru, posted 07-09-2009 3:37 PM dokukaeru has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by bluescat48, posted 07-10-2009 3:51 PM traste has not yet responded
 Message 385 by onifre, posted 07-10-2009 4:22 PM traste has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 383 of 415 (514659)
07-10-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by traste
07-09-2009 10:39 PM


Re: Hypothetico-deductive logic and the new hypothesis
You are right. I tried to change it, but as you see there is no edit. My grammar is sometimes inconsistent. I need your help. Where is the edit?

At the bottom of your message is the Edit button, you can click that and edit your message as well as post a quick note as to why you edited your message.

Oh dear I know all of this, this is just elementary logic you dont need to repeat it again. A person of my status who now focusing on complex reasoning and retrogade reasoning know all of this things.

Then why are you getting it wrong?

You did it well. Good Job!! This is however inconflict with your previous stand.

I see nothing here in conflict with Bluejay's previous posts.

Information update: Miller currently have said that " the origin of life is much more difficult than other people and I envision"

One science writer in Technology review wrote: " scientist are having to re - think some of there assumption little evidence has emerged to support the notion of hydrogen rich highly reducing atmosphere bur some evidence speak againts it"

The scientific american reported that:" Over the past decades or so doubts have grown about Urey and Miller experiment" .I will continue later its already time. I still have to study my math lesson.

This is the very biggest plus for science. It changes as new evidence is found. Miller and Urey started from they thought the early earth's atmosphere was like and ran experiemnts. Saying they were the first real study into abiogensis doesn't mean we think their results are 100% accurate. They started with a premise (there's that word again) and we have since found that their premise was not entirely accurate. Science, when it comes across instances like that will change the premise to match the current understanding (which probably still contain errors but are more accurate than before) and run new experiments.

Since Miller and Urey, there have been many studies and each of them are getting closer and closer to showing that simple life forms can emerge from non-life. Keep your eyes on the science news and in a few years, maybe a decade or so, you'll see the headline"Scientists create life." The headline will most likely be a little misleading, but it will appear, have no doubt.

Edited by Perdition, : I made a mistake on the coding and fixed it...this is what a note for an edit looks like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by traste, posted 07-09-2009 10:39 PM traste has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1634 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 384 of 415 (514675)
07-10-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by traste
07-10-2009 4:32 AM


Re: Eternal Life
just take note that chemical interaction is spontaneous.

But if one takes this over a billion years it sort of loses the spontaninity.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by traste, posted 07-10-2009 4:32 AM traste has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 385 of 415 (514678)
07-10-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by traste
07-10-2009 4:32 AM


Re: Eternal Life
I did not claimed that, my point is life has a beginning but it did not develop spontaneously.

That's an interesting way to confuse things.

* Life had a point of beginning.

* But not spontaneous.

Hmmm...sounds like abiogenesis to me.

I imagine you feel God created life at a single moment. Wouldn't that be spontaneous?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by traste, posted 07-10-2009 4:32 AM traste has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2009 5:06 PM onifre has responded
 Message 388 by greentwiga, posted 07-11-2009 9:09 PM onifre has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11443
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 386 of 415 (514681)
07-10-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by onifre
07-10-2009 4:22 PM


Re: Eternal Life
Spontaneous is not meant to mean "instantaneously", its meant to mean "that it happens all on its own".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by onifre, posted 07-10-2009 4:22 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by onifre, posted 07-10-2009 5:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 387 of 415 (514683)
07-10-2009 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by New Cat's Eye
07-10-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Eternal Life
Spontaneous is not meant to mean "instantaneously", its meant to mean "that it happens all on its own".

Thanks for the correction CS.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2009 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 388 of 415 (514748)
07-11-2009 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by onifre
07-10-2009 4:22 PM


Re: Eternal Life
I was reading, I think in Science News. They had an interesting article about the rise of iron and the drop in nickel as the world became oxygenated. A more important article was about the RNA world that has been postulated. The theory is that the four RNA building blocks spontaneously formed. Later, the four kept combining in various chains until a self replicating chain formed. Later, after RNA life was well established, DNA life formed, used some of RNA life's tools and otherwise took over. They are chipping away at proving the steps. They have now managed to "spontaneously" form two of the four basic RNA building blocks. Since it requires them to purify the sample at several steps, it is not quite like the conditions of early earth. Still they have progressed farther than with the other two. Currently, though, it is a faith step to say that the long self replicating molecule formed spontaneously, just as it is a faith step to say that God guided the formation of the combination that became self replicating. Until we have proof, either statement is a faith step (or an unproven hypothesis, if you will.) I am enjoying reading about the different theories of the constitution of the early atmosphere, and the various proposed sites for the formation of life (tide pools, Hot Springs, Mid oceanic ridge hot spots) Though some early theories have been proven wrong, we seem to be getting closer to the conditions that nurtured life.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by onifre, posted 07-10-2009 4:22 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Peepul, posted 07-13-2009 7:25 AM greentwiga has responded
 Message 393 by onifre, posted 07-13-2009 1:08 PM greentwiga has responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 2462 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 389 of 415 (514825)
07-13-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by greentwiga
07-11-2009 9:09 PM


Re: Eternal Life
Currently, though, it is a faith step to say that the long self replicating molecule formed spontaneously, just as it is a faith step to say that God guided the formation of the combination that became self replicating. Until we have proof, either statement is a faith step (or an unproven hypothesis, if you will.)

There's no faith involved in the scientific process. You're talking about our best theory of the origin of replication, which may or may not be true. We are trying to find out. Some individuals may 'believe' it to be true but in the end the beliefs of individual scientists do not matter to the progress of science, except to the extent that they lead people to study particular areas and question particular conclusions.

To believe that God did it, on the other hand, you do have to have faith - in the existence and nature of God.

So I contend these two positions are different.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by greentwiga, posted 07-11-2009 9:09 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 9:37 AM Peepul has responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 390 of 415 (514838)
07-13-2009 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Peepul
07-13-2009 7:25 AM


Re: Eternal Life
Some things, like the self assemblage of the building blocks may be provable, while others, such as the development of long chain RNA that is self replicating, may be unprovable how it happened. Anything ultimately unprovable becomes an unprovable hypothesis, or a faith step.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Peepul, posted 07-13-2009 7:25 AM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Peepul, posted 07-13-2009 9:38 AM greentwiga has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
232425
26
2728Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017